ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[Nick227]

Here's a list of shared historical events for Jesus and Horus, taken, according to the site author, from theologian Tom Harpur's book "Pagan Christ." He apparently drew his study from the works of three other authors on ancient Egyptian religion: Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). For citations listed see www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Nick

 

[MetalliSociety]

Another update on "Screw Zeitgeist"

Well, the first part is pretty much done. Going through and putting some last points in there, then gonig to watch it and make sure i put it all in the correct places.

Then it's off to everyones favorite topic: 9/11

 

[GreNME]

Was that for the launch, or the fly-by? Could they predict, in the event of an accident in the latter, just where burn-up and re-entry would have occurred?

Well, every launch is positioned specifically in order to avoid endangering populations. That's standard procedure. However, yes, as far as I remember the "slingshot" path around the Earth was supposed to be the safest path possible. The odds are typically staggeringly high for low danger. Most space programs I know of do this as regular practice, whether they're fledgling programs (like China) or established ones (like Russia), and the reason there are so few launches when it's obvious we have the technology to shoot stuff off the planet is because of the length of time it takes to just set up launch conditions (weather, trajectory, etc.). I think there are some guys who have done some work for NASA who are registered at this forum, so I'm sure they could share with you more details if you like.

Well, I can't imagine there are so many of them but I can certainly imagine that it's inevitably a risky business.

There are reasons some people (including myself) consider the people who go up there courageous enough to call them heroes. Even moreso those guys who did it with the computer equipment that is equivalent to most calculators nowadays.

Actually, what I said was..."- taking a unified stance on one political issue, where previously there appeared to be a broad range of stances taken by different media orgs". Maybe I didn't express it so well. I didn't say there was no coverage of public dissent, rather that there was no dissent expressed by the mainstream media themselves. As I recall. Left wing, right wing, when the troops marched in they all toed the invisible line, prompting the question - if a line was set, who set it?

You're right, I got a different message than what you were saying. I think the line being toed at that point in time was the line of unrestrained jingoism. The word "traitor" was getting tossed about blithely and with little consideration by some parties, and I agree it made for a sickening display of rampant jingoist nationalism.

I saw an interesting precis of Harpur's "Pagan Christ" online at www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm What do you think? On the surface it looks pretty convincing.

It only looks convincing because they don't actually attribute dates to the periods of those aspects it's comparing. I checked the references and, sure enough, I noticed a couple that are now considered by academics to be sources based on incorrect assumptions of what was known at the time.

At the core of the whole Horus-Jesus thing are the vestiges of a huge influx of people into the field of Egyptology between the years of the early 1830s or 1840s up to at least the 1950s. Egyptology is still one of the most highly populated in history and archaeology. Because of this, a lot of papers have been published throughout the years and several schools of thought on Egyptian mythology, Egyptian life, the Egyptian timeline, and even the Egyptian inclusion in the stories of the Bible-- naturally, biblical literalists are determined to keep the connection while the lack of solid evidence of the time as slaves lead others to believe that the story of the Exodus was figurative, and then there are people who are somewhere in the middle. This doesn't make any of these schools of thought liars, charlatans, or even completely wrong. It makes the study of Egyptology in itself a complex and difficult subject to examine and explain in simple terms. Think of it for most of the past 150 years like the current state of String Theory: there are more than one ways it is being approached, and several lines of study that cover varying degrees of validity and complexity, but none of them can be considered the definitive view on String Theory. Claiming so would be intellectually dishonest unless the person claiming it could prove that their 'definitive' view on String Theory was solid and withstood plenty of review and testing (peer review). If there are holes, the claimed 'definitive' view doesn't require being totally thrown out, but neither can it be considered 'definitive' and the holes must be properly addressed within the system that was derived.

Egyptology has, for the longest time, existed in such a state. This is why I am dismayed when I see references to claims stating a 'definitive' view on Egyptology, let alone mythological history from other cultures who have had less academic focus than Egypt.

 

[GreNME]

I'll do you one better, my lady friend who is a "human geographer" at the university of iowa was presented with this argument(that social sciences aren't like hard sciences) and as I cringed in preparation for my reaming she informed me that she agreed to an extent. Her answer was, to paraphrase:

"They operate with similar methods, however social sciences are much less objective then say chemistry, or mathematics, or physics. The social world we live in is far too complex to break down in such a linear way because humans are infinitely more unpredictable than say...atoms..."

I bring this up, because you are attempting to imply that they are as rigid as hard sciences in order to lend your argument more credibility.

You are assuming what I am saying, and I suggest you ask your lady friend to check out this discussion. You see, "The social world we live in is far too complex to break down in such a linear way" is exactly what I've been saying for a number of pages, and is one of the largest fallacies in the film Zeitgeist. I'm not the one claiming it can be broken down in a simple, linear fashion. I am stating the exact opposite, and condemning the film for attempting to do so to support what look like preconceived conclusions.

Just because something can be summarized clearly and succinctly doesn't mean that it isn't complex. You must have some idea as to the complexity involved in trying to unravel cross cultural meme's?

I do, which is why I'm saying that the film is neither succinct nor accurate. Do me the favor and get off this straw man.

And the newer discoveries are??? You have had much time to unravel this for us, and yet here, and even in your own 11 page dissection of the films first part I see little reference to this mysterious evidence. There isn't even a bibliography or cited references, something that the film at least supplied. I keep assuming that you could spend a minute to summarize these findings for our consideration, and am disappointed time and again when nothing surfaces...so I go and look through jstor, and the universities own online peer reviewed paper database and still find nothing that states with the certainty you have anything that would bolster YOUR claims.

If you're talking about the PDF, those are notes, not a prepared and formatted (with citations) paper. Holy moley, I have repeatedly been directing you to sources other than myself. I've given you names of books, I've given you links, and all you can complain about is that I haven't cited for you some publication that states "Zeitgeist is wrong" or "there is specifically no connection between Horus and Jesus." This is YOUR failing, not mine, because the information that is out there paints the picture that the connections claimed in the film are not as linear and specific as the narrator of the film describes, and THAT is the core of the problems with the film I have been pointing out. Repeatedly.

I find it ironic that you can take that statement like I am assuming that I have the answer. That was posted demonstrate what you think is going on here...

For example: when an empirical relationship has been observed, but the underlying mechanism is unknown, it may be reasonable to infer from the lack of conflicting evidence that the observed relationship is most likely causal

And that was posted to let you know what is really in fact going on here imo...hence the emboldened text.

Yes, and what you bolded was an example of the fallacy itself, not a fallacy I have committed. The onus is on the ones who made the claims, and I am pointing out that they have not, in fact, provided any reasonable evidence of a relationship. How many times do I have to repeat 'similarities do not imply a relationship' for this simple concept to sink in?

What real proofs have you supplied though?

I repeat: I am not the one who made the claim. I have provided titles of books and web links showing the holes in the claims and how they are not definitive. The onus is on the ones who made the claim to provide proof, because all of academia suppplies no such definitive claim as the film does. Either all of academia is simply lazy and/or stupid and some conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind against Christianity has solved a social and cultural mystery spanning millenia, or it is the film which is lazy and/or stupid and the wealth of information out there in academia claiming there is no definitive answer to such things like the film suggests.

You are attempting to not only debunk the films assertions but whole areas of study that support the thesis.

That is an outright lie. Every field the film uses has the same basic conclusion: there is no definitive answer.

I think we are all well aware and have stated several times in agreement that the films first section is lacking a certain historical rigor. No one is disputing that, what is being defended is the thesis...hence the reference to the monomyth hypothesis, and meme's and mysticism...the correspondences of which you have not addressed or considered to the best of my knowledge.

Are you actually admitting that the film does not display historical and archaeological accuracy? Honestly, if this is so, then why are you taking the premise of the film seriously when its research is obviously flawed? If this is the case, let me introduce you to another logical fallacy: Style Over Substance. Go look it up on Wikipedia.

 

[GreNME]

Here's a list of shared historical events for Jesus and Horus, taken, according to the site author, from theologian Tom Harpur's book "Pagan Christ." He apparently drew his study from the works of three other authors on ancient Egyptian religion: Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). For citations listed see www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Okay, I'll go through some of this list for you here. thesyntaxera, feel free to have your lady friend verify all of these for you, if you doubt me.

Virgin Birth -- Note the "there is some doubt" part for Horus. It isn't so much that there is doubt, rather it is evident that there are huge chunks of Egyptian mythology where this is outright not true, while at other times throughout Egyptian history where it is either implied or questionable. Asserting this is confusing the fact that the link is tenuous at best.

"Only Begotten Son" -- While it is true that both Horus and Jesus were the only children of Ra and YHWH respectively, I find two problems with the usage in this list: ^1. the phrase "only begotten son" was never used in that context to describe Horus (ever) and was written of Jesus in that verbiage many decades after he was gone; ^2. the reason Horus was the only son is because Osiris had his penis cut off and devoured when Osiris is killed (and this plays a significant role in the mythology), and there is no corrollary to this in the birth of Jesus (YHWH chose one son). Additionally, while Jesus is born of a human mother (as a redeemer and sacrifice), Horus is the child of two gods (who took the role of avenger). The stories don't look so similar when looked at in context, do they?

Mother's Name -- I can't think of this as anything other than complete ignorance or an outright lie. It is definitely an example of how the understanding of language plays a significant role in understanding the subject being studied. "Meri" in Egyptian is a term of endearment ("beloved"), something Osiris called his wife, whose name was ISIS, not Meri. "Miriam" or "Mary" has no definite meaning as a word outside of a name, despite it having been linked to possible words that definitely do not mean "beloved" in any reasonable way.

Foster Father -- Complete falsehood. Seb was the father of Isis, and was representative of the Earth. Seb was a god, a rather large (and original in Egyptian context) god; Joseph was simply a man. However, since Seb did not take on the role of foster father (Isis is said to have raised Horus in hiding until he could face Set), attributing Seb as such is a falsehood.

Anunciation & Birth Announcement -- I'm sticking these together because they are equally disingenuous, for a few reasons. First, Egypt did not have angels like depicted in Hebrew and Christian mythology. There existed spirits and avatars, and the name of Horus meaning something similar to "on high" does have heavenly ("of the skies and heavens," not the Christian Heaven where all good boys and girls go) connotations to it. Second, the story of Mary specifically depicts her as having been chosen by YHWH, while the conception of Horus by Isis is a deliberate act on the part of Isis (the legend has her tricking Ra to learn the secret of how to perform the act in the most common case). Third, the birth of Horus is announced to the other gods, while the birth of Jesus is announced to shepherds and foreign "kings" (who may have been called "magi" and had the term transliterated to avoid conflicting dogma). When looked at with in the context of the two stories, the similarities are only barely superficial.

Heralded by Sirius (the morning star) -- Um, no. The god who was the Egyptian personification for Sirius (who was a woman, not a dog) was one of the many gods who was merged with Isis (so was Hathor). So, unless by "heralded" the creators of the list mean "gave birth to," the claim is misleading and otherwise false. Since this merging with other gods happened at different periods throughout Egyptian history, and was fluctuating at the same time, this is yet another example of how claims attempting to link the two require the reader to assume a linear and specialized interpretation not used in the context of Egyptian mythology in order to "see" a connection. Even the star itself (and its associated constellation) had different meanings in Egyptian mythology than it did in Greek mythology (the canonical birth stories of Jesus were written in Greek).

Birth Date -- I don't know why this was even listed. Even the explanations of both explain that they aren't connected except that they both derive from the same event: the winter solstice. The date for the birth of Jesus was established as canon nearly 400 years after the canonical Gospels and centuries after he had been deified by many within the Christian sect. The date for the birth of Horus is tied into his origin, while the date for Jesus is definitely not. The lack of a linear connection at all destroys any assumption of implied influence from one to the other. The best connection to that date for Jesus was Mithra, who was not derivative of Egyptian mythology and is more similar to stories further east (in Persia and the Indus River Valley) than further west. The listing itself admits this.

Three Witnesses -- We come back again to the use of intentionally misleading definitions of beings in order to connect the two. The "three solar deities" are the different incarnations of Ra throughout the scope of Egyptian mythology, and were not three separate deities that co-existed at the same time through any period as witnesses to the birth of Horus. It was the magic of Ra that allowed Isis to conceive and birth Horus, and Ra has had several (not just three) incarnations throughout Egyptian mythology. This claim intentionally twists the facts in order to jam them into place to attempt to make a connection.

Death Threat During Infancy -- The person who assembled this list tried very, very hard to jam these two things together, and in doing so completely missed the mark. 'Herut' is a Hebrew word (meaning "freedom"), not an Egyptian one, and no 'Herut' existed that I am aware of outside of numerous self-references to the same tired claim that I have yet to find properly sourced to an Egyptian name. The one who made this list could have easily gotten away with this by explaining that while the Jewish king Herod wished Jesus to be killed, the god who killed Horus' father (Osiris) also wanted to kill Horus as a child to avoid vengeance. However, since explaining it like that makes the stories less similar, this fake use of a Hebrew name persists among huge numbers of people who are trying to make up ways in which Christianity and Egyptian mythology are similar.

Handling the Threat -- This is directly misleading due to whomever writing the passages assigning King James English (use of "thyself" and "thou" are specificall King James English, not Egyptian tenses) in the passages. Both Horus and Jesus were indeed both taken into hiding, but for Jesus the story only tells of his birth as being hidden. Horus is kept in hiding by Isus until manhood, at which point he goes out to avenge his father's murder by killing Set. Just saying that they were both taken into hiding would have been accurate enough to acquiesce a similarity, but whomever composed this list decided to use deceit (with language, Nick) to try to imply a greater similarity than there actually was.

Rite of Passage Ritual -- This is not a similarity, and I shall explain. The first reason is that the healing of the eye of Horus was done after his battle with Set. Set was forced to restore the eye of Horus by a 'council' of many gods after stopping the battle. There was no ritual. It was a compensation for the wrong put forth by Set to Horus. The story of Jesus going to the temple has no description whatsoever of it being a bar mitzvah, and attempting to equate it as such shows a high degree of ignorance to Jewish ceremonies in general and what actually takes place in a bar mitzvah in particular. Nothing described in any of the account of Jesus going to the temple as a child (which I believe only appears in one book of the Gospels) has any detail of any sort in association with any part of the bar mitzvah ceremony. This claim is pulled out of thin air. Further, whomever put the list together must not have known that trips to Jerusalem in order to visit the holy temple were done regularly by many Jews in accordance with Mosaic Law (yes, there are some parts of Mosaic Law that cannot be enforced today because the temple has been destroyed). Zero connection with this one, though quite an illuminating display of the ignorance of whomever compiled the list.

Age at Ritual -- False. First, as I have described, there was no ritual in either account. The only detail this part got right was that Jesus is said to have gone to the temple at age 12. When Horus fought Set he was a man, not a child. There is no account of the battle between Horus and Set anywhere that says otherwise. If the person who made this list is claiming such an account exists, then some pretty specific and original proof needs to be made, because the only "proof" of this claim exists in the form of self-referencing statements in lists like these. It is flat-out false.

Break in Life History -- Once again, false. While the story of Jesus has a huge gap from childhood to manhood, the life of Horus is depicted in various tales throughout numerous dynasties of Egypt. However, there is no single definitive story of Horus, because numerous versions of Horus exist. Some have Horus as brother to Set and Anubis (wait, what happened to the virgin birth?), some have Horus being taught or watched over (tended to) by other gods, some have him completely hidden and cared for by Isis. Some (very early versions) have Horus mothered by Hathor and Thoth, completely separate from the most common mythology. This claim was made up without any proper research into the actual accounts of Horus.

Age and Location of Baptism -- False and false. There is no account of Horus being baptized. This is a completely made-up claim that has never been supported using any ancient text whatsoever. There is nothing to 'disprove' this claim because nothing exists making this claim except individuals who are trying to connect Horus and Jesus. Which leads to...

Baptized By and Subsequent Fate -- False and False. See above. There was no "Anup the Baptizer." No ancient record or proof of such an individual exists. This is a figment of someone's (rather poor) imagination.

Temptation -- Not only does the person who organized this list want to link Horus to Jesus, but they want to link Set to Satan. There are an equal or greater number of reasons why this attempt to link the two are based on false pretenses and misrepresentations of information, but I will simply point out that Set was a god who was part of a whole conglomeration of gods, was the brother of Osiris (and Isis), and was not the god of the underworld or anything to do with life after death. Comparisons of Anubis to Satan would have more similarities, but would still fall short since none of the Egyptian gods were considered inherently evil or forces antithetical to the concept of "good."

Result of Temptation -- Oh, you're going to love this one: the only example of "temptation" of Horus by Set is an account where Set attempts to inseminate Horus. Horus does not allow Set's sperm to enter him, and instead directs it to the river (Nile). Horus responds by putting his sperm on Set's food, which Set proceeds to eat. When brought before a 'council' of gods to determine who dominated who, Horus is deemed the winner because his sperm is found to be inside of Set while Set's sperm is found to be in the river (Nile). This is a variation of the story of the battle between Set and Horus that was mentioned earlier, with obvious intention by those who came up with the tale to humiliate Set and imply he was homosexual. Yeah... I would love to see how someone could relate that to the story of Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan. It could be a whole new subset of slash fan-fiction, since the attempt to link these two accounts is an exercise in writing fiction.

Twelve Disciples -- There is a little more than "some doubt" with regard to this. It is a fabrication. There is no account of twelve disciples or followers of Horus. This number was completely made up and is not true.

Activities -- Misrepresentation. Horus was the god of the Sun and the Moon, was described as having the ability to do many things since he was a god. There is no account, however, of him casting out demons. Once again, demons and angels are a foreign concept to Egyptian mythology. There existed spirits, but these are described more like someone describes luck (or the lack of it), not as actual beings interacting with the living. I also don't understand why the person who collected this list made use of a paraphrased interpretation of Job 26:12 attached to Horus, since that's from Judaism and Christianity, not from Egyptian myth. While I'm kind of amused that a Google search on that specific text string actually turns up only similarly self-referencing lists with almost the exact same talking points (little or no deviation), I am disappointed that whomever added this to the list didn't think quoting from the Bible wasn't going to get noticed and the deceit shown for what it is.

Raising the Dead -- False. Horus did not raise Orisis from the dead. Isis is the one who raised Orisus from the dead. Interestingly absent from the poorly-researched list is a reference by Gerald Massey that Horus once made a mummy walk-- not to be confused with bringing the dead to life, though, because it only said he made the mummy (which had been embalmed and had funeral rites performed) walk. I am in fact including this because I think it deserves noting as an almost-similarity, but doesn't quite equal bringing the dead back to life-- which, outside of the story of Osiris, was considered impossible once the person crossed over into the land of the dead (in Egyptian mythology).

Origin of the Name Lazarus -- This is incorrect on many levels. First, Oriris was not known as Asar, the name "Asar" was an early version of the letters that made up the name of Osiris transliterated, and is not used any more. It is one of a number of early transliterations (see the Wikipedia page for a list) that are no longer in use and were all derived from the same sets of characters in translations of Egyptian text. These different spellings are an example of how even early translations are not conclusive. Furthermore, the name "Lazarus" is a Hebrew name meaning "one G-d has helped." It has an etymology linking it to the Hebrew language, not to Egyptian. Any attempt to link it has been made without any linguistic or historic evidence to establish association. The entire 'explanation' given in the list is a fabrication.

Transfigured -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Sermon on the Mount -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Method of Death -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Accompanied By -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Burial -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Fate After Death -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Resurrection Announed By -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Future -- Complete Fabrication. Not only does no record of such a prophecy exist, but to quote "Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt" by R.T. Rundle Clark ^link: "I have brought the ways of eternity to the twilight of the morning."


----


Any questions?

 

[Nick227]

The Council of Nicaea

At the core of the whole Horus-Jesus thing are the vestiges of a huge influx of people into the field of Egyptology between the years of the early 1830s or 1840s up to at least the 1950s. Egyptology is still one of the most highly populated in history and archaeology. Because of this, a lot of papers have been published throughout the years and several schools of thought on Egyptian mythology, Egyptian life, the Egyptian timeline, and even the Egyptian inclusion in the stories of the Bible-- naturally, biblical literalists are determined to keep the connection while the lack of solid evidence of the time as slaves lead others to believe that the story of the Exodus was figurative, and then there are people who are somewhere in the middle. This doesn't make any of these schools of thought liars, charlatans, or even completely wrong. It makes the study of Egyptology in itself a complex and difficult subject to examine and explain in simple terms.

Hi GreNME,

I think you articulate many valid issues on this subject. I thought to put in some thoughts about Zeitgeist the Movie's assertions regarding the Council of Nicaea, as I think some are also relevant here.

In trying to justify the claim, made in the movie, that the Romans created their own version of Christianity for social control (at the Council of Nicaea) I would point to the following as being useful for examination:

- There does exist a coherent and authentic spiritual or mystical philosophy relating to Jesus Christ.
- It was around at the time of the Gospels.
- It includes mythological elements known also to the Egyptians.
- It is, in many key areas, highly different from the Christian religion that later emerged.
- This philosophy remains to this day as Gnosticism, present at the "time of Jesus." It is also the mystical basis of, amongst others, Kabbalah, Alchemy, Rosicrucianism, & Freemasonry. All of these philosophies cite Egyptian sources or source material.

Christianity the religion is essentially a bastardisation of this philosopy, replete with misunderstanding and frequently introducing interpretations of ideas which are virtually 180 degrees from the original meaning. Examples include the notion of "original sin." This guilt-inducing concept derives from phrases in the New Testament implying that "Jesus died for our (or your) sins," phrases which have an utterly different mystical significance. The crucifixion is a mystical concept, not literal. The resurrection the same. Jesus's "birth" is a mystical concept. Many of Jesus' miracles are spiritual allegories.

Personally, I'd say there's a pretty good case to be made for asserting that the Romans created their own religion, Christianity. They used an existing perennial spiritual philosophy as source material, thus ensuring that it would be attractive. They subtly twisted the original meaning so that their religion became an overtly controlling moral dogma that blockades free expression and suppresses personal development. Christianity could validly be regarded as a vehicle for social control.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Transfigured -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Sermon on the Mount -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Method of Death -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Accompanied By -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Burial -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Fate After Death -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Resurrection Announed By -- Complete fabrication. No evidence of such a thing exists in the stories of Horus.

Future -- Complete Fabrication. Not only does no record of such a prophecy exist, but to quote "Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt" by R.T. Rundle Clark ^link: "I have brought the ways of eternity to the twilight of the morning."


----


Any questions?

Have you examined the sources cited in the book (Pagan Christ), assuming there were citations? This would seem to me to be a reasonble course of action prior to asserting "complete fabrication," for the sake of a basic level of objectivity.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

You are assuming what I am saying, and I suggest you ask your lady friend to check out this discussion. You see, "The social world we live in is far too complex to break down in such a linear way" is exactly what I've been saying for a number of pages, and is one of the largest fallacies in the film Zeitgeist. I'm not the one claiming it can be broken down in a simple, linear fashion. I am stating the exact opposite, and condemning the film for attempting to do so to support what look like preconceived conclusions.

Our social, cultural and mythological world can certainly appear complex on one level but, on others, it is not so much. Check out Maslow's "Hierachy of Needs" - a cornerstone of Humanistic Psychology and Transpersonal Psychology.

There are basic human needs and when the fulfillment of these needs is blocked, either through social engineering or ego orientation (the latter mostly develops as a result of the former) then complexity arises as we struggle to get our innate needs met through diverse strategies.

Understanding this, it is easy to see how social engineering, of the type undertaken at the Council of Nicaea, can be used to divert human activity towards more negative ends, such as the construction of a "prison planet." The process is much the same as diverting a river through the use of dams and manmade waterways. By blocking the fulfillment of innate needs, through for example enforcing a strict religious dogma that induces guilt in early infancy, then allowing only certain social outlets that temporarily release the accumulating feelings, it is possible to get people to create and reinforce their own confinement.

Relatedly, I would personally alter Syntaxera's friend's statement to reflect that the means we use to analyse the world on a scientific level are largely unsuited to usefully analysing it on a social or cultural level.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Hi GreNME,

I think you articulate many valid issues on this subject. I thought to put in some thoughts about Zeitgeist the Movie's assertions regarding the Council of Nicaea, as I think some are also relevant here.

In trying to justify the claim, made in the movie, that the Romans created their own version of Christianity for social control (at the Council of Nicaea) I would point to the following as being useful for examination:

[snip for brevity]

Personally, I'd say there's a pretty good case to be made for asserting that the Romans created their own religion, Christianity. They used an existing perennial spiritual philosophy as source material, thus ensuring that it would be attractive. They subtly twisted the original meaning so that their religion became an overtly controlling moral dogma that blockades free expression and suppresses personal development. Christianity could validly be regarded as a vehicle for social control.

I don't think a strong enough case could be made. I would agree that there was an incredible amount if Roman influence on the beliefs, organizational structure, and parts of the heirarchy. Rome was not a singular type of influence, however, and even Rome itself was an amalgam of a wide spectrum of people. Rome had annexed the lands where the Jews lived, and some Jews (like Paul) were actually Roman citizens as well as Jews. In the century that directly followed the claimed life of Jesus, there were Jewish uprisings that were put down by the Romans, and one way for this Christ-sect in its early days to differentiate itself from the Sanhedrin-influenced, more orthodox Jews was to allow for its faith to be observed by these Romans (in orthodoxy, Judaism applies only to Jews and those who follow a long and deliberate conversion).

The Christ-sect was not the first group of Jews to do this. Another notable group would have been the Samaritans, who were viewed as heretics to orthodoxy because they allowed themselves to be Hellenized (Greek influence) and accepted Roman rule (for safety, because they fought with orthodox Jews). This is notable because everyone knows at least parts of the 'good Samaritan' parable, and around the time of Jesus' supposed ministry the orthodox Jews of Judea and Samaria had a very distrusting and sometimed violent relationship. Because of this relationship, the Samaritans often relied on the Romans to protect them (Samaria allowed a Roman garrison to occupy their lands). Given the early develoment of a Jesus movement Judea, it would follow that these new followers would be concerned with being labelled heretics as well, which under orthodox law could warrant heavy punishments. Attempting to differentiate themselves from the orthodoxy and allowing for quicker conversion from outside faiths would allow these early Christians to spread their ministry faster and not be confined to Judea.

This didn't quite work out in the same way as Samaria (which is probably good for them, as Samaria was eventually flattened), and the early centuries of Christianity had the faith spreading mainly among outer provinces of Rome and mostly to the poor and slaves. Since these early Christians were typically identified by the powers-that-be in Rome as an errant Jewish sect or, later, a semitic death-cult, many Christians were treated with contempt (especially after Rome destroyed the temple in Jerusalem), and since many were slaves or not proper Roman citizens (who had rights) they were often killed for sport in front of crowds. Rome underestimated the significance of this, however, because all of these killings of openly-identifying Christians increased their notoriety among the Roman population and increased the Christians' popularity among the subjugated classes of Rome.

This continued for a few centuries, during which time a number of other Jewish 'messiahs' and their movements were put down as well. As the influence in Rome was slowly in decline (for a bunch of reasons, including periods of poor leadership), Constantine eventually came to power and for some reason-- I won't necessarily speculate on motivations-- became sympathetic to these many Christians in his empire. There would have been no doubt that this would be an excellent tool for solidarity, which is often attributed to partof Constantine's reason for first decreeing an end to their persecution and also for his "by this sign" revelation / vision. This isn't historically considered a tool for solidarity simply because of Constantine's actions, but because Constantine's mother (Helena) led excursions into Jerusalem to retrieve many of the holy artifacts that remain in the possession of the Catholic Church to this day. These artifacts-- the original cross, the burial shroud, the alleged nails, and more-- were displayed openly and sometimes even carried into battles along with rallying banners.

Constantine was the one to institute the Council of Nicea, and while he demanded as much influence as he could and would not allow the leaders of the various Christian groups to conclude the conference until they had a unified dogma, he actually did not achieve one of the goals that it is written he had for himself-- which would have been the position as the politial and religious leader, now called the position of Pope. Instead, after the Council Constantine was annointed as what is now considered to be the the first Holy Roman Emperor, a leader not only of all the Roman lands but also given a spiritual affirmation by one of the largest religions of the accumulation of lands in his empire. This allowed Constantine as well as the members of the Council to establish themselves with a legitimacy that was greater than the sum of the parts of politics and religion, something that supposedly could not be challenged. While the historical official "Holy Roman Empire" would not come to pass for a few hundred more years, these events set the framework for the church even before the end of Rome and the subsequent Dark Ages.

All throughout history, though, Christianity has proven itself adept at absorbing and assimilating the believers and the beliefs of other religions, but rarely on a one-to-one transferral basis. Christianity has consistently held its basic core beliefs of Christ in accordance to the Nicene Creed, while allowing some mystical stories from outside faiths to be added as tales of saints, angels, miracles, and affirmations to the power of the Christian faith. This flexibility has been the main reason Christianity was able to spread to so many different cultures with so many different mythological influences and across so many different cultural perspectives. For better or worse, it was the Christian churches that led Europe out of the Dark Ages, while at that same point in history the lands of the Middle East were enjoying an intellectual golden age where science, language, history, and culture were all commonly taught in universities, and huge chunks of history of the world that would have been otherwise lost forever were being kept by Arabic scribes and translated into a number of different languages. If not for the guidance of what is now called the Roman Catholic Church, most of Europe would have remained a collection of isolated and uneducated agrarian compounds for far longer than it did. It was the church who eventually named Charlemagne the title of "Holy Roman Emperor," which shaped the course of European history until well into the second millenium.

This, I think, is why there are the types of theories like those espoused in Zeitgeist: in a lot of ways, political and military history can be looked at as being intertwined with religious history, and only for the last couple of centuries have we in the West been able to look back at this history with a critical eye without fearing being considered heretics and risk being put to death or ostracized. The problem I find is when certain schools of thought, like those in Zeitgeist, attempt to over-simplify things, try to lay them out in a straight linear pattern, and draw direct lines of relationship between what is otherwise accepted were various numbers of contributing factors throughout the centuries, never in exactly the same configuration and constantly changing. It's an attempt to 'dumb down' history, and often for ulterior motives that typically include attributing malicious intent behind every aspect of civilization as we know it. This kind of simplistic thinking is bread and butter for conspiracy theories, because it can then be taken and implemented as an example of clandestine management by some assumed cabal of silent conspirators. This is a problem because it's only sustainable if one does not actually apply a critical and contextual examination of the events over time, where the differences show themselves rather plainly and the often-haphazard wheels of social, political, and cultural change don't always happen in a predictable manner.

 

[GreNME]

Have you examined the sources cited in the book (Pagan Christ), assuming there were citations? This would seem to me to be a reasonble course of action prior to asserting "complete fabrication," for the sake of a basic level of objectivity.

I disagree about it being a reasonable course. If someone makes a case for you that the Earth is flat and cites old and sometimes self-referencing sources, do you really believe that you are obligated to scour every one of those sources in order to adequately display to the person the proofs needed to show that the planet is, indeed, not flat?

I have checked what could be reasonably considered to be a number of sources that are used to support these claims, as well as doing numerous checks for specific incidents-- mentions of baptisms, use of the numbers three (for the magi) or twelve (for disciples), stories of death and the manner of death, and so on-- and found that many of the claims made are either of dubious origin (misinterpretations, mistranslations, wrong attribution) or are completely false and have never been recorded. I have actually challenged some people who have claimed some of the things I have called complete fabrications to show me source material containing the alleged descriptions of events before, and not a single person has been forthcoming with any example. It has always been a self-referencing, redundant tautology.

This is the same methodology that is applied when examining religious sources as claims of human origin, by the way. For example, many of the examples of Genesis or similar religious texts offer the same self-referencing redundancy and little or no actual proof. This was actually the methodology that was applied to the like of the story of the Iliad, and because proof was finally shown to actually establish the existence of Ilios (Troy), the general consensus of the account has since changed accordingly to one that gives at least some historical validity to the account of the Iliad, even though the mystical aspects are still not considered literal accounts of events.

This is how archaeology and history works. If some semblance of actual evidence can be shown, then some validity can be applied and the existence discussed in the context of the greater story of what we know of mankind. However, claims like the list you presented and those in Zeitgeist go well into the territory of making wild claims that have no basis in any original source material that we know of, which pretty much leaves the burden of proof remaining at the feet of those making the unsupported claims and never being answered. We don't consider accounts of a worldwide deluge to have merit just because a number of mythologies assert it, and because current understanding of geology and the global ecology show that not only is there no evidence of such an occurrence but that there is no indicator as to where such a vast amount of water would have originated, the burden of proof having been continually unmet despite current advances in science that greatly enhance the chances of finding such a proof leave the claims within the realm of pure speculation and religious mythology, not valid historic claim.

 

[GreNME]

Our social, cultural and mythological world can certainly appear complex on one level but, on others, it is not so much. Check out Maslow's "Hierachy of Needs" - a cornerstone of Humanistic Psychology and Transpersonal Psychology.

There are basic human needs and when the fulfillment of these needs is blocked, either through social engineering or ego orientation (the latter mostly develops as a result of the former) then complexity arises as we struggle to get our innate needs met through diverse strategies.

Understanding this, it is easy to see how social engineering, of the type undertaken at the Council of Nicaea, can be used to divert human activity towards more negative ends, such as the construction of a "prison planet." The process is much the same as diverting a river through the use of dams and manmade waterways. By blocking the fulfillment of innate needs, through for example enforcing a strict religious dogma that induces guilt in early infancy, then allowing only certain social outlets that temporarily release the accumulating feelings, it is possible to get people to create and reinforce their own confinement.

The problem I find in your idea is that it would still not apply to Christianity as a social construct, because Christianity has observable changes throughout history that would disqualify it from being considered a strict religious dogma in the larger, long-term scale and manifest differently in different locations in the smaller, short-term scale.

Instead, I would suggest that as more and more critical examination of political and religious history takes place, the more people find that the mythical and legendary constructs that we learn of as children (especially the religious ones) tend to have feet of clay. We find out that not every leader in our history was completely honest, full of virtue, and a kind and compassionate individual. We find out that some of the things we thought our cultural and religious predecessors fought for (like the Crusades) were not based on entirely virtuous motivations and that our predecessors regularly engaged in acts we would consider barbarous today.

This has a devastating effect on the myths we have built in our heads. There are three general reactions to this: ^1. Ignore it or develop apologetics; ^2. Re-evaluate and adjust according to the new information; ^3. Reject these myths outright and rage against them. Productions like Zeitgeist fall squarely into the third category, and actively proselytize for others to join them in their raging. I think the realm of religious apologetics should be well-recognized as falling within the first category with little doubt (though with some degree of variation since some of it slowly seeps into the second category). Most of everyone else tends to fall into the second category, with occasional dips into the first and third categories for short periods of time while they establish for themselves that balance of cognitive dissonance that is comfortable for them and their continued emotional comfort. The second tends to be the path of least resistance, a sort of Ockham's-Razor-applied-philosophy that lets us continue life even with the existence of incomplete pictures and conflicting mental puzzle-pieces that don't always fall into place. Everyone has some amount of this cognitive dissonance, no matter how much they pretend otherwise.

Relatedly, I would personally alter Syntaxera's friend's statement to reflect that the means we use to analyse the world on a scientific level are largely unsuited to usefully analysing it on a social or cultural level.

I would disagree, and I would hope that thesyntaxera's friend would disagree as well. While the social and cultural sciences are significantly younger and less established as their 'hard science' counterparts, there has been a great deal of work put into these sciences to require of them as consistent and objective an approach as possible, while allowing for the processes of approach to be chosen according to their respective connection to other sciences (including hard sciences) and for the application of those approaches to be determined within the context of the society or culture that is being examined. One does not study Mayan art in the context of ancient Chinese architecture, nor vice-versa. The history of imperial Japan is not examined within the context of the Apache nation or early American settlers, once again also not vice-versa. The reason this isn't done is because it opens the door for value judgments, and that methodology is observed as what was used by many groups throughout hisotry to consider people of other nationalities, ethnicities, and/or cultures to be inherently inferior and as such able to justify inhumane treatment. Such value judgments are obviously not objective or holding a scientific basis, and as such are eschewed by responsible and intellectually honest social scientists (and is one of the reasons I refuse to ever debate someone's religious faith).

There are a great number of things that the social sciences have done or methodologies that have been established to validate them as scientific fields of study. However, I really don't want to turn this into a discussion of "how scientific is x" and I don't see the rhetorical value of attempting to label certain fields as unscientific.

 

[Nick227]

I don't think a strong enough case could be made. I would agree that there was an incredible amount if Roman influence on the beliefs, organizational structure, and parts of the heirarchy. Rome was not a singular type of influence, however, and even Rome itself was an amalgam of a wide spectrum of people. Rome had annexed the lands where the Jews lived, and some Jews (like Paul) were actually Roman citizens as well as Jews. In the century that directly followed the claimed life of Jesus, there were Jewish uprisings that were put down by the Romans, and one way for this Christ-sect in its early days to differentiate itself from the Sanhedrin-influenced, more orthodox Jews was to allow for its faith to be observed by these Romans (in orthodoxy, Judaism applies only to Jews and those who follow a long and deliberate conversion).

I think you're right that it would be difficult to "pin it down" to the Romans, or one group or culture, for an assortment of possible reasons - the lack of historical record; that it isn't so; or because the events were covered up. However, I would maintain that there is a reasonable level of circumstantial evidence to support the contention that Christianity the religion was created as a vessel for social control.

It could also be the case that the authentic Christians created Christianity simply as a "vessel" in which to preserve their wisdom through a difficult period. They believed in the cycle of aeons and would have known that the Arian age was closing, heralding in the warlike forces of the Piscean Era. By creating a religion based around their principle manuscripts they could hope that their precious wisdom would survive til the dawn of Aquarius. Note that Christians frequently make use of the fish symbol, invariably drawn from the geometric shape vesica pisces. Given that a vesica is a waterproof vessel, the possible inference is clear.

This, I think, is why there are the types of theories like those espoused in Zeitgeist: in a lot of ways, political and military history can be looked at as being intertwined with religious history, and only for the last couple of centuries have we in the West been able to look back at this history with a critical eye without fearing being considered heretics and risk being put to death or ostracized. The problem I find is when certain schools of thought, like those in Zeitgeist, attempt to over-simplify things, try to lay them out in a straight linear pattern, and draw direct lines of relationship between what is otherwise accepted were various numbers of contributing factors throughout the centuries, never in exactly the same configuration and constantly changing. It's an attempt to 'dumb down' history, and often for ulterior motives that typically include attributing malicious intent behind every aspect of civilization as we know it. This kind of simplistic thinking is bread and butter for conspiracy theories, because it can then be taken and implemented as an example of clandestine management by some assumed cabal of silent conspirators. This is a problem because it's only sustainable if one does not actually apply a critical and contextual examination of the events over time, where the differences show themselves rather plainly and the often-haphazard wheels of social, political, and cultural change don't always happen in a predictable manner.

I think you also have to accept that history in some ways is an acutely non-relevant thing, in that it is always in the past. What is happening NOW, the socio-cultural undercurrents constantly coming in and falling out of vogue, constitute the real zeitgeist that we all lock into. It may well be true that the movie takes liberties with recorded historical record, but if that creates positive change in our world I for one have no problem with it. Besides history is written, and rewritten, by those whose views win out.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I disagree about it being a reasonable course. If someone makes a case for you that the Earth is flat and cites old and sometimes self-referencing sources, do you really believe that you are obligated to scour every one of those sources in order to adequately display to the person the proofs needed to show that the planet is, indeed, not flat?

No...but given that the book was, I believe, first published less than 2 years ago, I think a slightly stronger case could be made!

I have checked what could be reasonably considered to be a number of sources that are used to support these claims, as well as doing numerous checks for specific incidents-- mentions of baptisms, use of the numbers three (for the magi) or twelve (for disciples), stories of death and the manner of death, and so on-- and found that many of the claims made are either of dubious origin (misinterpretations, mistranslations, wrong attribution) or are completely false and have never been recorded.

It would be great to have this all listed for the record.

I have actually challenged some people who have claimed some of the things I have called complete fabrications to show me source material containing the alleged descriptions of events before, and not a single person has been forthcoming with any example. It has always been a self-referencing, redundant tautology.

Again, can you give us records? It would seem to be highly valid and useful evidence.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The problem I find in your idea is that it would still not apply to Christianity as a social construct, because Christianity has observable changes throughout history that would disqualify it from being considered a strict religious dogma in the larger, long-term scale and manifest differently in different locations in the smaller, short-term scale.

I agree. If I was more of a scholar or academic I would try and identify the points when certain negative concepts entered the taught Christianity - original sin, the need to seek salvation outside of oneself, the absolute existence of evil. This could help to demonstrate "malice aforethought," if such evidence exists.

That notion that religion may be used for social control is, however, hardly new. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity are all excellent examples of how entire populations may be psychologically manipulated.

Instead, I would suggest that as more and more critical examination of political and religious history takes place, the more people find that the mythical and legendary constructs that we learn of as children (especially the religious ones) tend to have feet of clay. We find out that not every leader in our history was completely honest, full of virtue, and a kind and compassionate individual. We find out that some of the things we thought our cultural and religious predecessors fought for (like the Crusades) were not based on entirely virtuous motivations and that our predecessors regularly engaged in acts we would consider barbarous today.

I think I read somewhere that the Templars are about to be exonerated, btw.

This has a devastating effect on the myths we have built in our heads. There are three general reactions to this: ^1. Ignore it or develop apologetics; ^2. Re-evaluate and adjust according to the new information; ^3. Reject these myths outright and rage against them. Productions like Zeitgeist fall squarely into the third category, and actively proselytize for others to join them in their raging.

I think, to be fair, that this 3rd above more develops in the face of authoritarian elements stubbornly refusing to shift their focus or give attention to the claims. If the US government would sanction a full open investigation into 911 then the developing extreme antagonism between the truthist and their discreditors would be averted. Like I've said a few times before on this thread - all the signs to me indicate that the NWOists are being set up.

I would disagree, and I would hope that thesyntaxera's friend would disagree as well. While the social and cultural sciences are significantly younger and less established as their 'hard science' counterparts, there has been a great deal of work put into these sciences to require of them as consistent and objective an approach as possible, while allowing for the processes of approach to be chosen according to their respective connection to other sciences (including hard sciences) and for the application of those approaches to be determined within the context of the society or culture that is being examined. One does not study Mayan art in the context of ancient Chinese architecture, nor vice-versa. The history of imperial Japan is not examined within the context of the Apache nation or early American settlers, once again also not vice-versa. The reason this isn't done is because it opens the door for value judgments, and that methodology is observed as what was used by many groups throughout hisotry to consider people of other nationalities, ethnicities, and/or cultures to be inherently inferior and as such able to justify inhumane treatment. Such value judgments are obviously not objective or holding a scientific basis, and as such are eschewed by responsible and intellectually honest social scientists (and is one of the reasons I refuse to ever debate someone's religious faith).

There are a great number of things that the social sciences have done or methodologies that have been established to validate them as scientific fields of study. However, I really don't want to turn this into a discussion of "how scientific is x" and I don't see the rhetorical value of attempting to label certain fields as unscientific.

Fair enough

Nick

 

[GreNME]

I think you're right that it would be difficult to "pin it down" to the Romans, or one group or culture, for an assortment of possible reasons - the lack of historical record; that it isn't so; or because the events were covered up. However, I would maintain that there is a reasonable level of circumstantial evidence to support the contention that Christianity the religion was created as a vessel for social control.

I'd disagree that there was sufficient evidence of that. I would say instead that Christianity, like many religions, has evidence of being utilized as a tool for manipulating social control throughout history. The difference is the actual role religion played in the act of others asserting control: instead of religion being created for the purpose of control, individuals saw a common thread of religious observance and sought to take advantage of that thread. It may seem like a minor distinction, but it takes religion as a thing and places it outside of the realm of malicious intent, which I think is key at this point (see my constant references to Hanlon).

It could also be the case that the authentic Christians created Christianity simply as a "vessel" in which to preserve their wisdom through a difficult period. They believed in the cycle of aeons and would have known that the Arian age was closing, heralding in the warlike forces of the Piscean Era. By creating a religion based around their principle manuscripts they could hope that their precious wisdom would survive til the dawn of Aquarius. Note that Christians frequently make use of the fish symbol, invariably drawn from the geometric shape vesica pisces. Given that a vesica is a waterproof vessel, the possible inference is clear.

I've been over this already. The fish symbol had many meanings, even at the time of the first Christians. There are no conclusive evidences to show which of those meanings it can be attributed to-- though it's likely that usage as a symbolism for the penis (glans) or the vulva were not mitigating factors. The areas written about in the books discussing the ministry of Jesus were all described as fishing towns. In Rome, the fish symbol had so many contradictory meanings it would have been innocuous-- after all, upper-class Romans often had stone phalluses hanging from walls in their homes, so seeing simple fish symbols on walls wouldn't have been out of place in the least. The end of the Jesus ministry and the first recorded uses of the fish symbol by his followers are nearly a century later, near the end of the first century CE. There is no evidence of even linear correlation, let alone any real causation.

I think you also have to accept that history in some ways is an acutely non-relevant thing, in that it is always in the past. What is happening NOW, the socio-cultural undercurrents constantly coming in and falling out of vogue, constitute the real zeitgeist that we all lock into. It may well be true that the movie takes liberties with recorded historical record, but if that creates positive change in our world I for one have no problem with it. Besides history is written, and rewritten, by those whose views win out.

Honestly, this type of view is an example of the gross misunderstanding of the importance of history that has led to large groups of people-- civilizations, even-- repeating the same tired mistakes due to inability to see the relevance of and learn from their history. To personalize it: when a child touches something that is hot and it burns them, the logical and expected response is, at some point, for the child to not put their hand there again. I'm not of the "those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it" or the "history repeats itself" school of thought, but I do believe that social and cultural trends through history can echo through up to present day, and certainly have relevance for choosing a response to things that inevitably occur (unrest, war, political maneuvering) inside a culture, government, and governmental relation to one another. We actually need to look no further than the Middle East today for an example of how this is true: all sides to the conflicts over there have historical claims that they feel lend authority to their position over the opposition.

History is relevant because it permeates the core of our relationship to different cultures in our own nations, and with the cultures in other nations.

 

[GreNME]

No...but given that the book was, I believe, first published less than 2 years ago, I think a slightly stronger case could be made!

Why do you think that? If all it references are not original sources but other outdated sources that agree with their premise to begin with-- hence the self-referencing comment-- how is the case made stronger?

It would be great to have this all listed for the record.

Again, can you give us records? It would seem to be highly valid and useful evidence.

This is not a reasonable request. For example, I can't show you a source that states equivocably that a baptism for Horus doesn't exist, because there exists no original source material that states outright that "Horus was not baptized, and Anup the Baptizer does not exist." Instead, all I can state is that no record of a baptism of Horus and no record of Anup the Baptizer exist. The only references that ever exist of these two things are in the self-referencing statements made by the fabricators. None of these fabricators can point to a specific Egyptian source and give a word-for-word translation of events describing the baptism of Horus by Anup the Baptizer, because such a source doesn't exist. Instead, these individuals reference each other in the hopes that it will eventually be accepted. The technique is really no different than the three-way game played by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in linking Iraq to al Qaeda and 9/11, where each of the three individuals kept saying it over and over and providing little proof, but always only referencing themselves or some unobserved and unverified "sources." In the end, even these men distanced themselves from the claim once they were confronted on it. Every attempt I have ever made to have someone claiming the existence of the baptism of Horus by Anup the Baptizer, I have asked for reference to an actual Egyptian source so that I could check it for myself. Never once have I ever had a response giving me any source to check out, because every reference given to me were others who did the same thing-- claiming that it exists and pointing to the next individual in the circle who makes that claim.

This is tautology, which doesn't rely on independent verification. As such, there is nothing that exists to "prove" them wrong, because there is nothing that exists to support their claim in the first place. The baptism thing is just one of many errors like this.

 

[GreNME]

I agree. If I was more of a scholar or academic I would try and identify the points when certain negative concepts entered the taught Christianity - original sin, the need to seek salvation outside of oneself, the absolute existence of evil. This could help to demonstrate "malice aforethought," if such evidence exists.

What kind of reasoning is there to lead scholars to believe some clandestine source of malice may have existed in the first place? There has, in my experience, been very little reason to assume such malice at all, even in the schemes and plans of leaders in history for self-gratification. In almost all cases, any malice has beenon an individual basis, as well as secondary or an afterthought.

That notion that religion may be used for social control is, however, hardly new. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity are all excellent examples of how entire populations may be psychologically manipulated.

Hundreds or thousands of years after the fact, sure. However, none of those religions began with any movement of solidarity, and all three of the ones you list engaged in fractured bickering over interpretation of the faith within themselves, let alone in relations with other faiths.

I think I read somewhere that the Templars are about to be exonerated, btw.

Believe me, the Templars weren't even on my radar in my statement.

If you want just one of many of the examples I am talking about, feel free to Google "Albigensian Crusade" or "sack of Constantinople" to get you started. There are plenty of pretty atrocious examples.

This has a devastating effect on the myths we have built in our heads. There are three general reactions to this: ^1. Ignore it or develop apologetics; ^2. Re-evaluate and adjust according to the new information; ^3. Reject these myths outright and rage against them. Productions like Zeitgeist fall squarely into the third category, and actively proselytize for others to join them in their raging.

I think, to be fair, that this 3rd above more develops in the face of authoritarian elements stubbornly refusing to shift their focus or give attention to the claims. If the US government would sanction a full open investigation into 911 then the developing extreme antagonism between the truthist and their discreditors would be averted. Like I've said a few times before on this thread - all the signs to me indicate that the NWOists are being set up.

I don't think that's fair at all. There is a difference between open examination and repeatedly investigating any myriad wild claim that might ever be mentioned. There are certainly some similarities claimed that have more credibility than others. The "mother takes child into hiding" claim, on the surface, seems to have some credibility for further investigation. However, when further investigation reveals that there are several contradictory accounts in Egyptian mythology of the extent that Isis actually went into "hiding" as oppossed to allowing Set to be in the presence of the young Horus, the credibility of the claim begins to quickly wane. When accounts come up describing Set and Horus as brothers, and accounts of other gods assisting Isis in the training of Horus as a child, then the credibility pretty much disintigrates.

By the way, I'm using parts of the list you already supplied because I am attempting to illustrate for you how what i'm saying applies directly to what you have offered, and to expand a bit upon my otherwise terse responses to each separate point in the list. I'm also using them to display for you how context and discrete information not originally supplied by those who make such lists lessen the credibility of the initial claims. Many of the things I talked about could expand into whole pages in and of themselves, while others still require the claimants to provide source material for review rather than self-referencing citations. Also, it should be pointed out that the history of Christianity doesn't have a singlularly-followed path for the first three or four centuries, and then from there it begins to slowly diverge into more than one path again, with forks along the way leading up to today.

 

[Mousey]

Well, I watched this movie last night, and I'm not going to lie, I was honestly being pulled right in and believed most of it. I have never researched anything of the sort on any of the topics discussed in this film, so I suppose my immediate acceptance of the film should be expected. I felt really enlightened..until I got to the 9/11 part which is really what made me iffy on the whole thing. Honestly, the religion part had me excited, as I thought I finally found the explanation I've craved for years. See, I have gone to church with no passion whatsoever, listening to the sermons I felt were ridiculous for so long, and I always felt the inclination to argue the stories of the bible, but I never had any real evidence of anything.(I guess I still don't) But now coming to this site, which I'm glad I did, I realize it probably isn't true. I was wondering though, does anyone have any reasoning on how the bible and christianity could be false besides this film? Obviously, many of you feel it is nothing but straight up fabrication, yet you don't seem to be religious. If anyone has any input they'd be willing to share, I'd appreciate it.

Ha, but the 9/11 part was just silly to me.

Anyway, just wanted to speak of my encounters. Thanks for the interesting discussions, I enjoy reading them.

 

[GreNME]

Honestly, the religion part had me excited, as I thought I finally found the explanation I've craved for years. See, I have gone to church with no passion whatsoever, listening to the sermons I felt were ridiculous for so long, and I always felt the inclination to argue the stories of the bible, but I never had any real evidence of anything.(I guess I still don't) But now coming to this site, which I'm glad I did, I realize it probably isn't true. I was wondering though, does anyone have any reasoning on how the bible and christianity could be false besides this film? Obviously, many of you feel it is nothing but straight up fabrication, yet you don't seem to be religious.

Before I go into my explanation, I want to make sure you understand that I'm not advocating or arguing against any religion, and I don't want you to take anything I say as a comment on what I feel your religious faith should be in any regard. That's your decision, your choice, and a personal matter that you need to work out on your own.

That said, I don't think there is a strong case that could be made about the Christian bible being "false" in any strict sense of the word. At least, it's no more "false" than the codified and documented textual beliefs of any other religion. It is what it is, and whether or not there are aspects of the Bible that are historically accurate or not doesn't necessarily change the "truth" of the text except for in the mind and perception of the reader who is viewing it.

It has, in many places, historical accounts or historical markers. In this, the various chapters of the Bible are useful in gaining an understanding of the times in which they cover. There are aspects of the Old Testament, for example, that offer a historical account of the dealings of the Jews with various other cultures in ancient times, both good and bad. This is naturally told from the view of the Jews at the time, and as such is going to be heavily biased in favor of the Jews, but despite this fact the tales are useful because they help to give some hints as to the times and places in which the stories in the Bible take place. This allows the reader to put the events being described into a time and place in the real world, to attach the story to something that is in some way based on factual events, whether accurately or not. There are some parts of the Bible-- Psalms and Song of Solomon, for example-- that give further insight into the culture of the Hebrews of the ancient times. Those two books are composed mainly of poetry or songs on a number of different subjects, using descriptive and metaphorical language that give the reader at least some idea of the (artistic) colloquial ways of creating verbal images and, in some of the love poems contained within them, an idea of what was viewed as beautiful and desirable at the time (not surprisingly, it isn't much different than today). These things allow for someone reading the texts to obtain a very humanized, very realistic picture of the people in these ancient times.

Being religious in nature, the texts contain many mystical elements, often of different types depending on which part of the Bible you are viewing and how it relates to the story being told. These things seem in many instances to be outrageous or possibly experiences that these ancient people had that they attempted to explain through mystical terms. However, when looked at in a similar way to epics like The Iliad, which was written roughly around the same time the oldest known copies of the oldest books of the Bible are thought to have existed, the mysticism becomes more like a part of the narrative that deliberately includes the deity or deities relevant to the religions of the people who were alive during the stories. Once again, since the Old Testament was collected in the oral tradition-- meaning the words passed down generation to generation through memorization of thousands upon thousands of lines-- it would take a very large leap of faith to expect that at least parts of the stories, incuding the details regarding mysticism or magical acts, did not undergo some minor changes (if only in focus) to be kept relevant to the generations as the oral history was passed down. While the miraculous or divine may seem unrealistic to many in today's world, it should be kept in mind that when viewing the Old Testament you are viewing a recording of things told from ancient times and from their perspective, and because these people felt a strong loyalty to their god they naturally included their god within the narrative. Not to say it's exactly the same, but The Iliad is a good comparison in this regard because it also includes the gods that were relevant to the people of that time in that place, and instead of taking away from the narrative it adds to the narrative. Makes it more exciting, more colorful, more sorrowful at times, and more joyful at others. If nothing else, the Old Testament does this in many places, as well.

But is it all true? If you've read some of my other posts in this thread, you will see that I'm not a big fan of 'true' in most cases, and avoid its use in anything but describing someone's point of view. It may very well be 'true' in that this was (and is) the way those who passed the books down believed and felt was 'true'. It may also be that there are places of delberate embellishment on the part of the narrators of the books. Naturally, we don't see talking flames in bushes, cities reduced spontaneously to ash, or sticks that can turn into serpents in this day and age, so it shouldn't be difficult to infer that the things of that nature described in the Bible are most likely interpretations of things that may or may not have happened in what may or may not be sequential order. Things like the general theory of evolution seem more scientifically practical in defining a realistic breakdown of how different species (including mankind) came to be dispersed on the planet, but the accounts given in the Bible seem less focused on the how and more on the why anyway, and I think this is significant when considering the events describing the mystical and the divine, because they tend to be aspects that offer more an attempt to explain why things happened the way they did than how, and when looked at that way academically the things described take on less the aspect of intentional lies than contextual religious markers relating events to the reader in a manner that is affirming (or confirming) of their faith. The Bible as a whole, both Old Testament and New Testament, is filled with this kind of language.

But does that necessarily make it false? I don't think so, at least not in the sense that I believe religious faith is a real thing that people can have and can seem 'true' to them. There are parts in the Bible that I think have a high likelihood of being historically or scientifically accurate-- and by 'likelihood' I mean 'the probability is so high as to be staggering'-- but even with that in mind I can also see how the text is speaking to faith, not to science. It doesn't seem interested in actually answering the science, only the faith of the person looking for it in the text. Whether it does so successfully, in my opinion, depends entirely on the reader and is a personal matter that is between the individual and their faith.

Because I see the value in the text (though not necessarily the faith), I have a copy of the Bible myself. I also have a copy of the Qur'an, a copy of the Book of Mormon, a copy of some collected Babylonian mythology, some books on Egyptian mythology, and a couple of books on native mythologies of North and Central America. I find it is worth owning each of those, and I will eventually acquire others. I can't tell you what that should mean to you as far as your faith is concerned, but I can tell you that I don't think I would consider any of those things outright 'false' even if I don't have a bit of faith in any of their respective religions.

 

[boloboffin]

Well, I watched this movie last night, and I'm not going to lie, I was honestly being pulled right in and believed most of it. I have never researched anything of the sort on any of the topics discussed in this film, so I suppose my immediate acceptance of the film should be expected. I felt really enlightened..until I got to the 9/11 part which is really what made me iffy on the whole thing. Honestly, the religion part had me excited, as I thought I finally found the explanation I've craved for years. See, I have gone to church with no passion whatsoever, listening to the sermons I felt were ridiculous for so long, and I always felt the inclination to argue the stories of the bible, but I never had any real evidence of anything.(I guess I still don't) But now coming to this site, which I'm glad I did, I realize it probably isn't true. I was wondering though, does anyone have any reasoning on how the bible and christianity could be false besides this film? Obviously, many of you feel it is nothing but straight up fabrication, yet you don't seem to be religious. If anyone has any input they'd be willing to share, I'd appreciate it.

Ha, but the 9/11 part was just silly to me.

Anyway, just wanted to speak of my encounters. Thanks for the interesting discussions, I enjoy reading them.

I know exactly what you mean. I've had a lot of study on the first two parts, so they were driving me up the wall. The first part I was sympathetic towards in a very broad way, but I knew a lot of the details were really, really, really wrong. The second part, on 9/11, I had no sympathy for and also know how really wrong it was.

And then the third part started, and I hadn't done much research into the Federal Reserve, and I'll be! The movie started to grab me. Well, it would have if I hadn't just suffered through the first two parts. I watched it all the way through, and then did a couple of Google searches. And that was the end of that.